HISTORY® is the leading destination for award-winning original, non-fiction series and specials that connect history with viewers in an informative, immersive and entertaining manner across multiple platforms. Among the network's programs are hit series such as "American Pickers," "Ax Men," "American Restoration," "Ice Road Truckers," "Top Gear," "Pawn Stars" and "Top Shot," as well as acclaimed specials including "Vietnam in HD," "Gettysburg," "America the Story of Us," "WWII in HD" and "102 Minutes That Changed America." HISTORY has earned eleven Primetime Emmy® Awards, 12 News & Documentary Emmy® Awards and received the prestigious Governor's Award from the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences for the Save Our History® campaign. History.com is the leading resource for all things history, featuring over 20,000 videos, images, audio clips, articles and interactive features that allow visitors to dig deeper into a broad range of topics, as well as show video.

That's it, History Channel.Your legitimacy has hereby been revoked.

Renewed yet infused with apathy.Let's just have a good time, all right?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjQii_BboIk

HISTORY® is the leading destination for award-winning original, non-fiction series and specials that connect history with viewers in an informative, immersive and entertaining manner across multiple platforms. Among the network's programs are hit series such as "American Pickers," "Ax Men," "American Restoration," "Ice Road Truckers," "Top Gear," "Pawn Stars" and "Top Shot," as well as acclaimed specials including "Vietnam in HD," "Gettysburg," "America the Story of Us," "WWII in HD" and "102 Minutes That Changed America." HISTORY has earned eleven Primetime Emmy® Awards, 12 News & Documentary Emmy® Awards and received the prestigious Governor's Award from the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences for the Save Our History® campaign. History.com is the leading resource for all things history, featuring over 20,000 videos, images, audio clips, articles and interactive features that allow visitors to dig deeper into a broad range of topics, as well as show video.

That's it, History Channel.Your legitimacy has hereby been revoked.

History includes the impact of beliefs, as well as just plain opinions about real events. Things not necessarily verified are also legitimate, so long as they are identified as such.

That said, while the Bible certainly qualifies, shows like ice road truckers and axe men are not really history.

Thats the problem with cable TV. MTV doesnt show videos. VH1 rarely does. History channel puts on programs that are reality shows not history. The station names dont match the programs being showed. False advertising is what I say. Like the mail order bride you get on line , bitch is crazy. Everybody is coppying each other. Multiple dance and song reality shows plus numeruos others. Very repetitive programing. Is it really history or his story??

ha ha, you should tell your mother that the vikings were never conquered through force of arms. They were defeated and integrated when they were converted to Christianity. For the most part I think. They went around hacking and looting and killing and in the end it was bowing before the cross that finally allowed them to be absorbed. A somewhat ignominious and anti climactic end I should think.

History channel used to do a lot of interesting shows. Even though at times, all they would show would be WWII shows over and over, at least it pertained to history. They even did a short series where they used the Rome Total War game to re-inact historical battles. Now, it's Ice Road truckers (the hell does that have to do with hisory?), axemen (once again, the hell?), and Pawn Stars/American Pickers (which, although at least these are somewhat involved with history, it's about the only thing on consistently that does).

Bring back ACTUAL history shows! And MTV, how about some MUSIC? You haven't had music videos as part of your daily schedule since the original Beavis and Butthead cartoons.

ha ha, you should tell your mother that the vikings were never conquered through force of arms. They were defeated and integrated when they were converted to Christianity. For the most part I think. They went around hacking and looting and killing and in the end it was bowing before the cross that finally allowed them to be absorbed. A somewhat ignominious and anti climactic end I should think.

The word "Viking" was a verb, not a noun. Basically it meant something like "go out and seek your fortune because there sure as hell aint no work in your home town."

Contrary to popular belief, the Vikings were not genetically predisposed to be violent or bloodthirsty. They wanted the same thing that any of us wants: just to sit at home with good food, good beer, and a decent blowjob every now and then. Unfortunately, the rocks of Scandinavia don't provide much agriculture, and climate change destroyed the fishing they depended on, so off to "Viking" the men had to go. But it was never meant to be a permanent life change for them, just an emergency measure. Once they found new profitable lives for themselves they settled down and became just ordinary people, even though for a long time the bottleneck of survival they had passed through made them a bit tougher than average.

ha ha, you should tell your mother that the vikings were never conquered through force of arms. They were defeated and integrated when they were converted to Christianity. For the most part I think. They went around hacking and looting and killing and in the end it was bowing before the cross that finally allowed them to be absorbed. A somewhat ignominious and anti climactic end I should think.

The word "Viking" was a verb, not a noun. Basically it meant something like "go out and seek your fortune because there sure as hell aint no work in your home town."

Contrary to popular belief, the Vikings were not genetically predisposed to be violent or bloodthirsty. They wanted the same thing that any of us wants: just to sit at home with good food, good beer, and a decent blowjob every now and then. Unfortunately, the rocks of Scandinavia don't provide much agriculture, and climate change destroyed the fishing they depended on, so off to "Viking" the men had to go. But it was never meant to be a permanent life change for them, just an emergency measure. Once they found new profitable lives for themselves they settled down and became just ordinary people, even though for a long time the bottleneck of survival they had passed through made them a bit tougher than average.

Oh, I've never had anything against the northmen. They did what they had to do at the time I suppose. They were a tough bunch, I'll give them that. There was quite a bit of negative propaganda about them at the time. Which is to be expected I guess. Culture clashes, they get messy sometimes.

And this is kinds of LOL, though I mean no disrespect-

Duke wrote:and climate change destroyed the fishing they depended on

Burning a lot of fossil fuels were they? Is that man made climate change?I think it's safer to say that the northmen simply outgrew the resources they had available. That is there were too many of them to be fed with the current state of their fisheries. But you may be right, I'm just a bit skeptical with that particular conclusion of yours. As you say, their soil wasn't the most fertile for farming. I've never heard anyone of any note tying viking expansion to climate change. The theories are that they outgrew their resources, looking for revenge, looking for wives, seeking new trade routes and that it was just easier for them to go raiding than it was to try and clear land to provide greater resources for farming in a natural climate that was not conducive to farming in the first place. But never climate change per say. But, who knows, maybe.

patches70 wrote:And this is kinds of LOL, though I mean no disrespect-

Duke wrote:and climate change destroyed the fishing they depended on

Burning a lot of fossil fuels were they? Is that man made climate change?I think it's safer to say that the northmen simply outgrew the resources they had available. That is there were too many of them to be fed with the current state of their fisheries. But you may be right, I'm just a bit skeptical with that particular conclusion of yours. As you say, their soil wasn't the most fertile for farming. I've never heard anyone of any note tying viking expansion to climate change. The theories are that they outgrew their resources, looking for revenge, looking for wives, seeking new trade routes and that it was just easier for them to go raiding than it was to try and clear land to provide greater resources for farming in a natural climate that was not conducive to farming in the first place. But never climate change per say. But, who knows, maybe.

The Medieval Warm period caused the North Sea herring to move further north towards the Barents Sea. I know I've read about that, but I don't have the book any more and I really suck at Internet searching. I googled "effects of the Medieval Warm Period on Norse expansion" and various variations thereof, and all I got was articles about the positive effects, such as the decline of the ice packs allowing the Norsemen to colonise Iceland and Greenland. Anyway, as you say, it wasn't the only cause, so we can just leave it at that.

Dukasaur wrote: Anyway, as you say, it wasn't the only cause, so we can just leave it at that.

Yeah, fair enough. It's just that the first viking raids began some 150 years before the medieval warm period, so I don't put much stock as that being much of a cause. But it may have played some role I guess, eventually. We'll never really know one way or another.

ha ha, you should tell your mother that the vikings were never conquered through force of arms. They were defeated and integrated when they were converted to Christianity. For the most part I think. They went around hacking and looting and killing and in the end it was bowing before the cross that finally allowed them to be absorbed. A somewhat ignominious and anti climactic end I should think.

I just don't understand how my mom can't see the irony. She's usually pretty intelligent. The Old Testament was highly violent.

ha ha, you should tell your mother that the vikings were never conquered through force of arms. They were defeated and integrated when they were converted to Christianity. For the most part I think. They went around hacking and looting and killing and in the end it was bowing before the cross that finally allowed them to be absorbed. A somewhat ignominious and anti climactic end I should think.

I just don't understand how my mom can't see the irony. She's usually pretty intelligent. The Old Testament was highly violent.

Ya, lots of gnashing of teeth and such.

And you will know My name is the Lord when I lay My vengeance upon thee.

ha ha, you should tell your mother that the vikings were never conquered through force of arms. They were defeated and integrated when they were converted to Christianity. For the most part I think. They went around hacking and looting and killing and in the end it was bowing before the cross that finally allowed them to be absorbed. A somewhat ignominious and anti climactic end I should think.

Nope, you should re-read your history, (just don't take your sources from the history channel) the Vikings were never defeated on home ground. No Christian nation colonized Scandinavia and forced the Vikings to adopt Christianity. They lost their invasion of England in Hastings in 1066, but they didn't lose their home country just because they lost an invasion. In similar ways that Britain didn't disolve when it lost it's colonies in Africa. What happened was that the Scandinavian countries one after one choosed to adopt Christianity. They saw how much more power they could get over their own people if they made Christianity their state religion, and they would get better trade deals with other Christian nations if they were to convert.

AoG for President of the World!!I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!

Wait a second, are you saying Obama is the devil??! I KNEW IT! I KNEW IT ALL ALONG!!

lol jk, seriously though, it's a pretty funny coincidence.

Back on topic, I watched a bit of one episode of The Bible a couple days ago and I can see why the series is so popular (it even had more viewers than American Idol on its opening night). The series is actually fairly well done, especially when you compare it to the cheesy movies that a lot of Christian/conservative organizations produce. It'll be interesting to see if the series will be translated and broadcast around the world like the Jesus film from the 80s. Last I heard, that movie has been translated into over 1000 languages and counting.

Ray Rider wrote:Wait a second, are you saying Obama is the devil??! I KNEW IT! I KNEW IT ALL ALONG!!

lol jk, seriously though, it's a pretty funny coincidence.

Back on topic, I watched a bit of one episode of The Bible a couple days ago and I can see why the series is so popular (it even had more viewers than American Idol on its opening night). The series is actually fairly well done, especially when you compare it to the cheesy movies that a lot of Christian/conservative organizations produce. It'll be interesting to see if the series will be translated and broadcast around the world like the Jesus film from the 80s. Last I heard, that movie has been translated into over 1000 languages and counting.

Yeah, I actually found about about the series because Bill Maher made a post about the devil character's similarity to Barack Obama.I looked into it and I'd say it's pretty much completely coincidental.

Renewed yet infused with apathy.Let's just have a good time, all right?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjQii_BboIk

I prefer to see a show like The Bible to the myriad of reality shows currently on the history channel. I'm enjoying it though I think the History Channel has covered the material better in past shows like Battles BC and Banned from the Bible. I'd love in the future if they covered more religious texts from a historical or military perspective

ha ha, you should tell your mother that the vikings were never conquered through force of arms. They were defeated and integrated when they were converted to Christianity. For the most part I think. They went around hacking and looting and killing and in the end it was bowing before the cross that finally allowed them to be absorbed. A somewhat ignominious and anti climactic end I should think.

Nope, you should re-read your history, (just don't take your sources from the history channel) the Vikings were never defeated on home ground. No Christian nation colonized Scandinavia and forced the Vikings to adopt Christianity. They lost their invasion of England in Hastings in 1066, but they didn't lose their home country just because they lost an invasion. In similar ways that Britain didn't disolve when it lost it's colonies in Africa. What happened was that the Scandinavian countries one after one choosed to adopt Christianity. They saw how much more power they could get over their own people if they made Christianity their state religion, and they would get better trade deals with other Christian nations if they were to convert.

Not exactly true,the Normans who won in 1066 were ironically descendants of Norsemen and they defeated Anglo-Saxons.The Viking kings like Canute and his sons had been displaced earlier by the Anglo Saxons.

jonesthecurl wrote:I think the reference is to Stamford Bridge, not Hastings.

Except he specifically mentions Hastings,where the Anglo Saxon king Harold Godwin was defeated who succeeded Edward the Confessor another Anglo Saxon who succeeded the last Viking king Hardicanute 24 years before 1066.